The Role of Jurisdiction in Federal Prosecutions

The Role of Jurisdiction in Federal Prosecutions

Jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear and decide a case. Generally speaking, federal courts have jurisdiction over federal crimes, and state courts have jurisdiction over state crimes[3]. But it’s more complicated than that, as jurisdiction can overlap between federal and state courts.

Understanding jurisdiction is key to federal prosecutions, as it determines where a case can be brought. This article will examine the role of jurisdiction in federal criminal cases, looking at how it works, key factors, examples, and implications.

Exclusive vs Concurrent Jurisdiction

Some types of cases can only be heard in federal courts – this is known as exclusive jurisdiction. These include cases involving federal laws and treaties, ambassadors, bankruptcy, patent laws, admiralty law, and more. Federal courts have total control over these cases[4].

But many laws can be prosecuted in both federal and state courts – called concurrent jurisdiction. For example, robbery involves violating both federal and state laws. The plaintiff can choose which court to bring charges in. But there are caveats[3]:

• States can only prosecute in state courts.
• Federal government can only prosecute in federal courts.

Having the case in two courts doesn’t violate double jeopardy protections. The state and federal governments are considered separate sovereigns[3].

Original vs Removal Jurisdiction

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases authorized by the Constitution or federal statutes. But state courts sometimes also have jurisdiction over these cases[5].

If a plaintiff files in state court where there is overlapping jurisdiction, the defendant can choose to “remove” the case to federal court. This shifts the case to the federal court’s jurisdiction[5].

Factors in Federal Jurisdiction

Several key factors determine whether a federal court can exercise jurisdiction over a criminal case:

• Federal Question – Did the crime violate federal law? If so, federal courts have jurisdiction[6].
• Territorial Jurisdiction – Did the crime occur on federal lands or waters? Then federal courts have jurisdiction[2].
• Interstate Commerce – Does the crime intersect with interstate commerce? Courts have interpreted this broadly to cover many crimes[3].
• Diversity Jurisdiction – This allows federal courts to hear state law cases between citizens of different states. But it does not apply to criminal cases[5].

There are other niche factors as well, like cases involving federal employees or agencies. But these four are the main considerations.

Examples of Concurrent Jurisdiction

Here are some examples of criminal cases where federal and state courts have overlapping jurisdiction:

• Bank robbery – Robbing a bank violates both federal bank robbery laws and state larceny laws[4].
• Murder – Taking a life illegally violates both federal laws against murder and state laws against homicide[3].
• Drug crimes – Selling illegal drugs breaks both federal and state narcotics laws. But simple possession may only violate state laws[3].

Kidnapping, counterfeiting, and mail/wire fraud are other examples. The choice of where to prosecute depends on factors like evidence, punishments, and resources.

Implications of Federal vs State Prosecution

Choosing between federal or state court prosecution has meaningful implications[3]:

• Federal law enforcement has more resources for complex cases.
• Federal charges often carry harsher penalties than state charges.
• Double jeopardy does not apply between state and federal courts.
• Federal courts create national precedent; state courts interpret state laws.

Prosecutors strategically consider these factors when choosing where to bring charges. For example, a complex multi-state crime ring may be better suited for federal prosecution.

Limits on Federal Court Jurisdiction

While federal court jurisdiction has expanded over time, there are still constitutional limits. Scholars argue this keeps federal courts focused on cases of true national significance[6].

Having to show a federal question or interstate commerce connection sets a baseline for federal cases. And the Supreme Court has ruled that these connections must be more than incidental.

This jurisdictional divide promotes federalism. State courts retain great authority over state law matters that lack a compelling federal component. Issues like family law, small claims, and traffic violations remain in state courts.

Conclusion

Jurisdiction determines where a criminal case may be prosecuted – in federal or state court. While complex, understanding these rules is key to federal prosecutions.

Overlapping state and federal laws allow for strategic prosecution. But limits on federal reach aim to keep federal courts focused on cases of national importance.

Navigating jurisdictional rules requires close analysis of each case’s components. But doing so allows prosecutors to choose the best forum to serve justice.

References

[1] Federal Courts & the Public | United States Courts

[2] 9-27.000 – Principles of Federal Prosecution | JM – Department of Justice

[3] State vs. Federal Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases – Nolo

[4] Court Role and Structure | United States Courts

[5] Introduction To The Federal Court System | United States Department of Justice

[6] subject matter jurisdiction | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute